women have not run (don't mind the occassional queen or other temporal head of state) societies throughout human history. that history has been an unending sequence of conquering, destruction, mass murder, plunder, ruined ecosystems, and too many babies. I say that given a chance to participate in decision-making equally (no de facto exclusion), women and men together might avert the trainwreck we are heading toward. the tea party was, agree with it or not, a genuine temporary pulse of democracy in action. and women have a lot to be dissatisfied with anyway

change will happen no matter who is elected, because it is largely out of any leader's ability to force things (eg, Eurozone). the real question is how will leaders react to the changes that happen. like him or not (I don't particularly), the present president has not led us into war, inherited two wars, inherited an economy on the brink of depression and saddled with one of its largest sectors (housing) irrepareably damaged, and coped with an unprecedentedly hostile congress.

Dear Democrats, Liberals & RINO's: You are right. The Tea Party is dead. In November, remember that if you like the way things are do nothing. If, however, you are looking for things to change, vote for Romney.
Sincerely,
Coffin Occupier

To hell with the Occupiers who demand only equality and more payouts at every grog parties. At all tea-parties, everybody would agree that he or she should be paying taxes for their sweat is a bad idea.

The Tea Party had promise, but as soon as I heard that 55% of the Tea Party was now female, I knew that instant that it had died.

Women want large government, period. Women also believe that the primary role of government is to transfer wealth from men to women (they will never admit this, but their voting patterns prove this every time). This is true of Republican women as well.

Hence, when women started to go to the Tea Party, it ceased to be a small-government movement.

Writing off the Tea Party this early? You are at your own peril. You ain't see nothing yet. Wait until the November election. Yes, the Occupiers will make a 2nd or 3rd attempt to discredit and disrupt, but the hard-working Americans are paying attention this election cycle.

The biggest problem of the RINOs is their being spineless and gutless. They always want to compromise for the wrong reason(s) as if it were a good thing. You don't see the left do that, do you? They get at your throats with gusto and it is their ways or the highways. Any and every comprise by the RINOs translates into a victory to the left and the far left who do not see anything that is middle of the road.

The fact that Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar and other RINOs are now challenged by the Tea Party candidates comes as no surprise. It's the will of the hard-working Americans who want to turn the tide of this great Nation and make it great again.

As long as the left want to control, control and control through big government, green this green that and taxing the most productive groups in society to death, the revolt will continue whether it is under the umbrella of the Tea Party or other groups because they understand that sitting around is not an option and the November Election this year is a test of their resolve and that of the majority of the American people.

So to those who wish ill to the United States of America, not so fast. The majority of people in this country still love America and want to return to its old glory and power. How to do that? Fight teeth and nails against the career politicians and leftists. It's an eye for an eye in 2012 now.

One wonders whether the 1% having watched Downton Abbey, along with the rest of us, have received a Masterclass in Noblesse Oblige or.......will they continue to invest their tax breaks overseas, rather than at home!

The Occupiers of the World especially in the US are in constant futile pursuit for equality. But the tea partiers have entrenched the Plutocracy where the Riichi now take off 80% of the national wealth compared to 30% just a few decades ago. Cheers and we can all drink to our heart content at the Tea Party.

Except the droves of unaffiliated independents receive nary a mention in how many months?

All this talk about relative status of the Tea Party, Romney or Obama feeding red meat to the party faithful, then "tacking center to gain centrist support" is a lot of hogwash. For the former which has become everything that defines Republican, it's a grab for power, for the latter, it's feeding a song and dance to the broad center, so they and their party faithful buddies dish out favors for their side for 2 or 4 years.

Time to talk less about the machinations of the two party system and more about what is not happening to embody the views of the rest of us.

Dearest @Thrum Cap, as a casual reader too, my thoughts are twofold:
First, provided we’re enshrouded in a living language—words are up for creation; secondly, in context with use of the root, we’re blessed with our author’s artful phrasing of the – forgive the paraphrase – “the more bitter end of end of the Republican spectrum. It made sense to me, be “tanniny” a word or not. As for spellchecker, they’re not typically as comprehensive as most of our vocabularies.

I always enjoy your use of words but "tanniny" seemed very, very strange. So I investigated.
"Tannins are thought to taste astringent because they bind with salivary proline-rich proteins and precipitate them out. This leads to increased friction between mouth surfaces, and a sense of dryness or roughness."
t
That is what tannin means. My spell checker indicates that "tanniny" is misspelled. Where did you find that spelling? What does "tanniny" mean?

I heard recently that Obama said that borrowing had to be continued to meet spending commitments, and I couldn't help thinking how shortsighted this was, especially when America owes 14 trillion dollars, or something to that effect.
What were these spending commitments that were so essential at the time?
If Obama is reelected, perhaps he will change his economics advisors, because the one major fault that all Tea Party voters have with Obama, is the fact that the economy doesn't seem to have recovered as fast as they would like. It was only 8 months ago that America was in dire danger of going into default.
However, since the economy is not what it should be, it means that Romney, if elected, will also, like Obama, inherit an economic mess. He can talk about getting America back to work, but this is easier said than done.
Let's not forget, that any measures Obama has taken to get the economy back on track have been systematically blocked by the Republicans.
That is not to say that all of Obama's plans have been entirely beneficial for the country in terms of money spent and the time span required, but it seems a little too easy for the Republicans to block Obama and then accuse him of being incompetent.
On the other side of the argument, the wealth gap between federals in Washington and the rest of residents was at its highest gap in 2009 since 1984. As 'guest-iaaases' says, 41m people receive food stamps, which is atrocious. However, I disagree with 'guest-iaaases' when he/she says that the Democrats don't do anything-without a majority vote, what can they do?
And how are we so sure that the Republicans plans will actually reduce the deficit, without making crippling cuts that are sure to hit America's poorest the hardest? Let's not forget that Romney claimes he's 'not concerned with the very poor-there's a safety net for them. If it's broken, I'll fix it....I'm concered with the 95%...the ones who can't pay their bills.'
Does he not seem to realize that the very poor can't pay their bills either? Can he be trusted to fix the safety net?
He seems selfish in imlying that as long as they are not dying , then noone should care. How can he claim to want to help the middle class pay their bills if he votes against a common sense legislation like the Buffet Rule, proposed by Obama two weeks ago-that the over $1m earners should pay 30% of their income in taxes?
That way, Romney's 95% would not have to shoulder most of the taxes that run the country! Has this not occured to Romney?
By helping the very poor, he gives them vice to also get employment, and possibly remove themselves from the welfare lists, which are very long. Not by throwing money at the very poor- but by creating job oppurtunities in these so called rough areas, and therefore giving investors confidence.
Take Detroit, for example, the city Romney wanted to let go bankrupt four years ago. All the major companies that were fuelling the economy there have since moved out to other cities. This leaves many unemployed for long periods of time. How can Romney not be concerned about these people?
The Tea Party still has some way to go before they convince me that they are what America needs.

The Tea Party seems to hate the spending, but most of that stems from the fact that Obama included Afghanistan and Iraq in the Federal Budget instead of hiding it like Bush. Coupled with reduced tax revenues (due to the recession) and you have a large deficit. Obama's only sin seems to be continuing Bush spending much of which was out of his hands. Unfortunately he hasn't done a very good job communicating that to the American people (whose short attention span and stupidity are legendary). Even under the best circumstances the recession would not have turned on a dime after Obama was elected.

You don't need any more convincing from the Tea Party. It's either you want small government or big government that intends on controlling every aspect of your life.

The Tea Party wants small government, capping government spending, lower taxes, pro-business and economic growth, energy independence, border control to discourage illegals from flooding this country, return U.S. to its economic and military powers and most important of all, PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. What more do you want?

Vote for the left and far left if you want none of the above and dream to be a gypsy.

Of course, a small government is a better money saving option, but I still can't see how blocking the Buffett Rule will make life easier for who they claim to want to help.
However, I will certainly allow you have made some valid points, but I did point out at the beginning that Obama's spending contiuation was a mistake.
Here is my opinion on your points:
1-Capping government spending is good, but if it means that the poorest in America are hit hardest, then there is something wrong. Remember, many are receiving food stamps, on welfare.
2-Pro-business and economic growth is absoulutely vital for American growth. They owe China trillions of dollars-its definitely time to set America up again. This can also help get lower income families into employment, if Romney cares about that.
3-Lower taxes-obviously a good policy, especially since taxes are higher as everybody must purchase healthcare insurance, but what about millionaires? Will they, who certainly do not need lower taxes benefit? is that fair? The focus should be on lower income families, and the working middle class. Also, if tax is low, what is going to be expensive?
4-Energy independence is also a very good point. America have been stupid enough to enter this pointless war with the Middle East, who supply their oil, which they cannot win, and so they risk having their supply cut off-like Iran threatened recently. therefore they must develop their own resources. However, don't forget the justifiable concerns of environmentalist groups. On the upisde, employment will increase.
5-Border control-this is a difficult area. Border control is always going to be hard to achieve. Also, who the American media tells you is illegal is not always necessarily so. If drugs can get into America, then so can immigrants. They day you see illegal drug consumption drop, then you will know that illegal immigration may have decreased slighty. This will increase employment, but it will be hard-look at the coast of Florida-that is exceptionally difficult to control.
6-Returning the US to its econoic powers, I have already discussed, but military powers? Aren't the Americans war mongering enough? Please remember that the world is full of scheming terrorists, who are enraged by the atrocities committed by the Americans in the Middle East. They also ahve the support of the locals. Just because an American who has never been or knows anything about the ME presses for greater military control, doesn't mean that the Tea Party should blindly follow. Lets not forget the countless numbers of INNOCENT Iraqi's, Afghans, Pakistani's who have died, been displaced or injured in the name of finding the Taliban. Why compound this behaviour with more arrogance and belligerence?
7- Protect the individual right- this is good, but there is likely to be a clash with some groups of people-if the individual right is,for example, to keep gay marriage illegal, then you have a problem with those who disagree. If the individual right is to keep abortion illegal, what of thos who disagree? It can be hard to judge. But I don't agree with overlooking faith in order to establish a law.

Bob Bennett supported Obama’s TARP, that resulted in the waist of billions of dollars, like most of the Obama’s plans. The Tea Party Knew that TARP would be disastrous and for that reason didn’t support it, Bennett made a mistake. But the Tea Party is there, ready to support de candidate that save this country. Each day the debt grows, the unemployment grows and there are unprecedented 41 million people receiving food stamps. The Financial Act to control financial institutions will cost more in bureaucracy that what it supposedly would save. Goldman Sachs’ executives are been hired by Al Gore’s financial company and other Chicago financial institutions. New York financial market is moving to Chicago. New York will crash without Wall Street. No only that, the Social Security Administration announced that by 2016 won’t be funds to pay pensions. Geithner, the Treasury Secretary said that they won’t accept the republican’s budget to balance the deficit and save the social security. But the democrats are the ones who are in power, they are in control, they are the ones who have to come with the plans to resolve the problem. They don’t do anything and don’t let others to do something. Wake up America.

If TARP had been spent (as originally intended) to buy up distressed properties and get them off the books of banks, it had a chance...but as soon as the Democrats got their hands on it, the mashed it into their own grubby hands.
What happened to the toxic assets? They are still there.
Big Government failure...again.
Smaller Federal government needed now...stop the spending; shut down the whole thing and only turn up those parts which are Constitutionally fundamental. It's time to face the fact that this government has failed.
Reboot.

The Tea Party (TP) is still there, alive and watching. Romney knows they are watching. They may not be able to defeat Obama on their own, but they can take down Romney.
They are conservative folks who were stabbed in the back by their government and what they thought was their party. Bush and his herd of Neocons took over and performed just about every act a true conservative abhors. They started a war without sufficient evidentiary backing, without a declaration by Congress, without adequate planning for the occupation and pacification and safety of the indigenous population. Then they cut taxes, twice, while plodding along in two wars. Then they passed a massive spending program in Medicare Part D and they did it all on the National credit card. They screwed the American people.
Meanwhile, on Wall Street the Goldman’s AGI’s, Citigroup’s were having an orgy in derivatives and quasi insurance instruments while the nations lenders were making mortgage loans at 100% + to just about anyone who could fog a mirror and then scampering to sell the trash to the Goldman’s; who sold it to the pension plans of the municipal governments and teachers while at the same time betting those same MBS’s would go under.
In the Swamp things were quiet as the regulators (taking turns between Wall Street, K Street and Congress) were busy plotting their movement up to the big leagues back on K or Wall Street. Those in Congress forgot about their oversight obligations or had been bought off or sold a bill of goods by the much smarter lawyers from the big leagues.

The TP’s took it in their ears and other places left and right, up and down and were the big losers as government bailed out the big guys and in an act of righteous indignation fined the Goldman’s 5 cents on every other $100 they stole from the people. The TP’s are like you and me but they have enough energy left to gather, congregate and fight. We should all join them and make them better.
If there’s one thing that’s absolutely clear, it is that neither major party is fit nor deserving to lead this country. Don’t believe me? Read Republic Lost by Lessig and find out the facts of the criminal activity we call an electoral system.

You don't sound like a Tea Partier to me. Other Tea Partiers are fine with cutting taxes, which is why their budget numbers don't total. Other Tea Partiers loathe regulators, whereas you wish for them to be more diligent. Other Tea Partiers claim to dislike Wall Street but they stand in the way if Obama attempts to increase the oversight and regulation of Wall Street.
If the Tea Party believed what you believe, and walked that walk, I would be delighted.

I generally don't join movements or parties. Years ago I was a Republican, but it became clear to me they are merely two sides of the same coin. Both are invested in big, powerful government. Otherwise how could reward their funders and screw their opponents? They just work with two different sets of the same bunch.
As for regulations, I suspect we're taking about variations of the same. No one wants laissez faire government (no one who has an inkling of what that would mean). We need effective but not heavy handed regulation and we need effective and timely oversight. Oversight has morphed into some committee or another swooping down after a debacle has fully blossomed to bayonet the wounded, claim victory and tour the talk shows.

Well, if all of us who have the "right" answers were to join them, how could it not make them better? It might be the best hope we have of a successful 3rd party challenge to the status quo. If there are enough folks joining in their voices can fix what some of us think needs fixing there.

Is wanting to live in a first rate, first world country but not wanting to pay taxes to support it a sense of entitlement? If so, then I'm tired of all these "successful" people and their sense of entitlement.

We don't have to explain it, since you've carefully omitted most of the data points -- making a hash out of reasoning. You left out an analysis of the OECD countries. We DO want to compare apples to apples, developed economies, right? And of those 33 countries, the top ten highest taxers are the Scandinavians, Italy, Belgium, Austria, France, and the Netherlands, with tax rates from 40% to 49%.

A comparison of these high-tax countries by the Happiness Index is also enlightening: These countries are at the top, along with Canada, New Zealand, and the U.S. Italy is an outlier, just average on the Happiness Index, because they have major problems with jobs, housing, and education. Something tells me they're not using their tax revenue as wisely as are the others.

The Happiness Index chart is fully interactive, and each component can be accessed separated by clicking on its line in the country popup you get when you hover over the country. Guess who's near the top on almost every gauge of happiness? The Scandinavians, who have the highest tax rates in the world.

My friends from Denmark and Finland tell me that's because their taxes buy quality universal health care, comprehensive free education, a well-maintained infrastructure, and a robust social safety net. So you see, high taxes do buy a higher-quality country, and correlation is causation here.http://oecdbetterlifeindex.org/

John Albert Robinson is right, based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Your friends are what you cite for causation? I'm gonna need something better than that.

Let's do an even more apples-to-apples comparison. Happiness by state. Medium Utah is the happiest state. Higher tax West Virginia is the unhappiest. Highest tax Alaska is relatively happy. Lowest tax New Hampshire is also relatively happy. What does this tell us? That something else might be at work. Scandinavian countries are relatively wealthy and homogeneous, both known to be correlated with happiness and there's a much stronger case for those causing happiness.

Your post conveniently leaves out the easily verifiable sources (plural) that Leigh Williams cites in his comment. Yet you decided to pick out the empirical/anecdotal statements he provided and offer a flippant, borderline rude rebuff.

Nobody says that *your* data/sources are less valuable than his, or that your comparisons are not like-for-like. But the fact that you ignored the documented segment of his contribution says quite a bit about your willingness to poke fun at/put down anything/anyone who brings forward opinions that put forward a different from yours.

Not a great look, and certainly not the best way to gather support for your opinions.

you explained it yourself... cherry picking. and causation is very difficult to prove. so we, practically speaking, most of the time, work with correlation. and often what causes one thing causes another. lowest taxes are paid by those folk who benefit the most from the way of things.

America has always had a lunatic fringe. What has varied over time is the size and impact of the group. The 'tea baggers' are yet another manifestation of that. Take a deep breath and when the economy improves, as it eventually will, they will be forgotten. Until of course, the next economic downturn, when they will again ........

Marie Le Pen appeals to a similar voter demographic as does the Tea Party, but with a completely different economic platform -- statist, protectionist, anti-free market. The U.S. as opposed to France ...

Ugh... folks... there is really no rural "middle class" in America, unless you count a few wealthy burgs such as Aspen, or dying off retirees. Small town America, except perhaps within commute distance to metros, is dying and composed primarily of working poor or just the simple poor.

True, if you wish to define it culturally. That is a legitimate observation, but my point was largely econonomic. We are seeing an economic and population collapse in large parts of rural America, with migration into large metropoles that are often themselves without functioning job markets or working infrastructure to support them. Its a true crisis not being addressed by any political party in the United States today. Its really not much different from whats happening in the UK, where the London metropole/SE IS the economy and the North and Scotland are left to rot. Its why the SNP will win independence for Scotland in the end when New Labour abandoned the northern working class. Soon the old will be new again and this century will be much like the last (in my estimation).